bi uuld hardli bi fatisfyid uih myi teliŋ bim, hat uyn av hi uyrds oridfinali fignifyid onli e lad ar fyrvant; and hi чhyr, an yndyr plauman,car hi inhabitant aav e viledh. It ix fram prezent iufedfi onli, hi miiniy av uyrds iz to bi dityrmined.

Iur sekynd inkaanviniens iz, hat “hi dif« tinkfyn bituiin uyrds cav difyrent miiniŋ "and fimilar faund uuld bi diftrcayid.”. hat distinkfyn iz calredi diftraayid in pronaunfin hem; and ui rilyi can hi fens alon avhi fentens to afurteen, buith av hi feveral uyrds, fimilar in faund, ui intend. If his iz fyfifient in hi rapiditi cav diskors, it uil bi mutfi mor so in riten fentenses; buithi me bi red lexfurli; and atended to mor partikularli in kes cav difikylti, han ui kan atend to e paft fentens, buyil e spikyr iz byryin ys alaay uih nu uyns.

Iur hyrd inkaanviniens iz, hat "cacal hi « buks alredi riten uuld bi iufles."—his in

kanviniens

käanviniens uuld onli kym can graduali, in e kors av edfies. Iu and yi, and yhyr nau liviŋ ridyrs, uuld hardli farget hi ius civ hem. Piipil uuld long lyrn to riid hi old ryitin, ho he praktift hi nub.. -And hi inkaanviniens iz nat greter, han buat bes aktuali hapend in a fimilar kes, in Iteli. Farmerli its inhabitants aal fpok and rot Latin: az hi languedh thendhd, ni speliy falo'd it. It iz tru hat at prezent, e miir ynlarn'd Italien kancat rid hi Latin buks; ho he er ftil red and yndyrftud byi meni. But, if hi fpeliy had nevyr bin thiendfied, bi uuld nau bev faund it myth mor difikylt to riid and ryit biz on languadfi ‡ ; far riten uyrds uuld hev had no riléfyn to faunds, he uuld onli hev ftud far hiys; fo hat if bi uuld ekspres in ryitin hi yidia bi bez, buen hi faunds hi uyrd Vefcovo, bi myft iux hi leter Epifcopus.-In hart,

[That is, fuppofing it ftill to have kept up to its old form of Latin fpelling, and not to have changed to the prefent form of Italian fpelling. E.]

buatever

buatever hi difikyltix and inkanvinienfix nau er, he uil bi mor iizili fyrmaunted nau, han biraftyr; and Jym tyim ar чhyr, it myft bi dyn; är aur ryitiŋ uil bikym hi sem uïh hi Thyiniiz ‡, difikylti av lyrniy and iuziy it.

az to hi

And it

uuld alredi hev bin Jyth, if ui had kantinud hi Sakfyn Speliy and ryitiy, iuzed byi our forfahers.

yi am, myi diir frind,

iurs afekfiynetli,

Lyndyn,

Kreven-ftriit,

B. Franklin*.

Sept. 28, 1768.

*

1 Chinese.

[Perhaps it would have been better to have had the new letters caft upright, in order to have fuited with Roman inftead of Italic characters: But it did not occur till too late. If any false spelling has appeared in the above, it is as fair to attribute it to the editor as to the author. E.]

On

On the VIS INERTIA of Matter.

In a Letter to Mr. Baxter.

ACCORDING to my promife, I fend you

in writing my obfervations on your book*: You will be the better able to confider them; which I defire you to do at your leisure, and to fet me right where I am wrong.

I ftumble at the threshold of the building, and therefore have not read farther. The author's Vis Inertia effential to Matter, upon which the whole work is founded, I have not been able to comprehend. And I do not think he demonstrates at all

* [It was a book, intitled An Inquiry into the Nature of the Human Soul, wherein its Immateriality is evinced, &c.-One of the chief objects of this book was to prove that a refiftance to any change is effential to matter, confequently inconfiftent with active powers in it; and that if matter wants active powers, an immaterial being is necessary for all thofe effects, &c. afcribed to its own natural powers. -After ftating the feveral proofs questioned by Dr. Franklin, of a VIS inertia, or "force of inertnefs" in matter, the author adds; If the immateriality of the foul, the existence of God, and the neceffity of a moft particular inceffant providence in the world, are demonftrable from fuch plain and easy principles; the atheist has a defperate caufe in hand.' (See the 3d edit. p. 1-8.)-In fact, Mr. Baxter's doctrine feems to establish, rather than difprove, an activity in matter; and confequently to defeat his own conclufion, were not that conclufion to be found from other premises. Primá facie it feems better for Mr. Baxter's fyftem, to fuppofe matter incapable of force or effort, even in the cafe, as he calls it, of refifting change; which cafe appears to me no other than the fimple one, of matter not altering its ftate without a cause, and a cause exactly proportioned to the effect. E.]

clearly (at least to me he does not) that there is really fuch a property in matter.

2

L

He fays, No. 2. Let a given body or mass of ⚫ matter be called a, and let any given celerity be ⚫ called c. That celerity doubled, tripled, &c. or halved, thirded, &c. will be 2 c, 3 c, &c. or c, c, &c. refpectively: Alfo the body doubled, tripled, or halved, thirded, will be 2 a, 3 a, or 1 a, 1a, refpectively.' Thus far is clear. But he adds, Now to move the body a with the celerity c, requires a certain force to be impreffed upon it; and to move it with a celerity as 2 c, requires twice that force to be impreffed upon it, &c.' Here I fufpect fome mistake creeps in by the author's not distinguishing between a great force applied at once, or a fmall one continually applied, to a mass of matter, in order to move it. I think it is generally allowed by the philofophers, and for aught we know, is certainly true, that there is no mafs of matter, how great foever, but may be moved by any force how fmall foever (taking friction out of the question;) and this small force continued, will in time bring the mass to move with any velocity whatsoever. -Our author himself feems to allow this towards the end of the fame No. 2. when he is fubdividing his celerities and forces: for as in continuing the divifion to eternity by his method of

[It would not have been inconfiftent in Mr. Baxter, to admit an augmentation of force from fucceffive applications of it; in which cafe a fmall force often repeated, is no longer a fmall force, but becomes a large fum of forces. E.]

[See the following note. E.]

* •